The folks I feel sorry for are the students - Win 10 is released Friday, all the new computers being bought for Fall term starting will have it, students taking programming courses will often be stuck with the newest of the new since the instructor adopted (or wrote) the latest text book, etc. And, they may be stuck with these versions of various software packages for a few years while they go thru a degree track...

Windows 10 is using the as-a-service model, so any student-owned machines will get new upgrades (for free) as they are released for the lifetime of the device. Campus-owned machines would probably still upgrade at the same pace as normal. In my experience (being in college and working at a university for over a decade) this means security updates may be applied regularly, while feature upgrades happen over the summer. Since many schools are under MSDNAA, their experience with Windows 10 will be almost identical to how it was before, from what I can tell.

Sure, but... I expect an IDE crash to be more difficult than "compile my code then double-click a warning message".

I'm not sure how you qualify expected difficulty of causing a crash. They could have run thousands of unit tests every build, had hundreds of internal testers running every test they could reasonably imagine, and run a large public beta, and still never come across the exact combination of environment and set of inputs that caused your particular crash for your particular project.

Which is why the Republicans absolutely CANNOT put Trump on the ticket. I don't like him, I don't like Hillary, I don't like most of the candidates running but I sure as hell prefer to see the better ones face off (unlike putting Romney up against Obama, that was a done deal before it started).

I'm not even for charging to the industry... I'm for charging the individual entities that are responsible.

An industry charge might look at two power companies and decide, because they both have $5 billion revenue per year and both use coal plants, both should pay $100 million in additional taxes.

An entity charge would look at those, and recognize that the second one is focused on clean energy and produces only 5% of the emissions that the first one does, and adjust the tax bill so that the first pays 20 times as much additional tax as the second.

An interpretation of your idea is to simply have people pay for the services they need when they need them. This is how the court would work; few people would fund it until they had to do so in order to secure the court's services. But such an approach would almost certainly work unfairly against the "little man".

For example, say roads were all toll-based. If both a rich man and a poor man drive 12,000 miles per year on those roads, they would likely be charged the same under such a system. Ok, sounds fair... but now let's turn to military. What does each get charged for their protection? Do they also get charged the same in this case? Probably, but then the rich man has more to protect considering the military is helping secure his $100 million, mansion, ownership in stocks, and so on. By contrast the military is only protecting $100 and a shack for the poor man. Clearly they should be charged differently for military protection, as well as numerous other services that provide more for a rich man than a poor man... which is pretty much why we have a progressive tax system.

Even if you don't agree with that assessment, the tax system is built only to approximate the "fair share" that each person pays into it. It doesn't try to perfectly represent what each person owes the government for the services that have been provided to them. As inefficient as the income tax system feels during the winter/early-spring months, it would be MUCH more inefficient to have everyone calculate and then pay individually for their share of each and every single item in the federal budget.

We don't know what she did. All that we know is that which she has allowed us to know.

But the whole ordeal stinks of negligence on her part, something that someone in her position as candidate for Presidency would place a high value on covering up. And considering that she has been less than forthcoming in this situation, appearances lead us to suspect that she may indeed be covering up something.

Does that prove anything, either way? No. So unless proof is found and released, it's up to the voters to decide. (But who am I kidding; most voters had already decided their 2016 vote years or decades ago.)